IPP Mail Archive: IPP> MOD - Use of "enums"

IPP> MOD - Use of "enums"

Carl-Uno Manros (carl@manros.com)
Sun, 13 Jul 1997 10:06:02 -0700

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Tom Hastings: "IPP> PRO - Updated "Mapping between LPD and IPP Protocols""
Previous message: cclark@ietf.org: "(no subject)"
Next in thread: Stan McConnell: "Re: IPP> MOD - Use of "enums""

At 03:17 AM 7/12/97 PDT, Tom wrote:
>Scott,
>
>I edited with revisions ipp-model-970623-rev.doc (after accepting revisions)
>
>and put back in:
>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_MOD/
>-rw-r--r-- 1 pwg pwg 311296 Jul 12 10:09 ipp-model-970623-th.doc
>
>I've included the new enum data type and the enums values for the
>five attributes that we agreed to be enums instead of keywords
>and which aligns with the Job Monitoring MIB:
>
> "finishings"
> "print-quality"
> "printer-resolution"
> "job-state"
> "document-format"
>
>I also copied in the "job-state" and "job-state-reasons" that we agreed
>to jointly between the JMP and IPP.
>
>NOTE: that going back to Printer MIB document-format enums means that
>PDF needs to get registered. Would be nice to include PDF in the
>Printer MIB textual-conventions that is due this week.
>
>Tom
>

Tom,

are we sure that we know what we are doing here? The recommended solution from
Nashua to use "enums" where they were already defined in other standards sounded
good at the time, but does the Job Monitoring MIB really fall into that category
- YET?

I do not want the progression of IPP to be dependent and possibly delayed by the
Job Monitoring MIB project. Are we convincened that the Job Monitoring work
will
proceed with at least the same speeed as IPP?

Carl-Uno

Next message: Tom Hastings: "IPP> PRO - Updated "Mapping between LPD and IPP Protocols""
Previous message: cclark@ietf.org: "(no subject)"
Next in thread: Stan McConnell: "Re: IPP> MOD - Use of "enums""